If gays marry, churches could suffer

[moosetracker 132]

Merlyn - It may be subject to "interpretation".. But, that is all our District requires.. Belief in something greater then yourself.. As the head of our Eagle board states (a little sarcastically) "If you want to tell me you believe that the streetlight outside is superior to you, then that is all I need to accept your belief in something higher then yourself.. But, you can believe in the wonder of nature, or aliens that are superior to mankind, or whatever..

 

But, I am sure other heads of Eagle boards, or SM's or what not would not except a belief in the lamppost as something greater then yourself.. Or at least state it can't be an inanimate object.. and to truth, I don't know if the head of our Eagle board would really allow belief in an inanimate object..

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

How acceptable would "humanity" be? It would fit a lot of atheist humanists, with no supernatural component.

[skeptic 992]

Merlyn; You ARE NOT a Scouter, so whatever you do or do not believe makes no difference in this context. You have a complete right to your "non-belief". It just has no place within the Scouting program. Your problem, and many others', is that somehow God, and god have become confused. A God is a specific entity in which someone believes, something greater than self, normally a spiritual idea with certain higher power perhaps, or not; while gods are generic.

 

But, there is really no point in pointing this out to some, as you will continue to argue that you are right, and everyone else is wrong if they disagree. So do so, that also is your right. Just please quit trying to interpret Scouting as something you truly understand or in which you and your opinion have standing.

 

Scouting without God, of some personal decision, would not BE Scouting. JMHO of course.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

[KC9DDI 11]

Not to speak for Merlyn, but those who aren't Scouters because they cannot be Scouters because of their (lack of) religious views are very much affected by the BSA's prohibition.

 

Your problem, and many others', is that somehow God, and god have become confused. A God is a specific entity in which someone believes, something greater than self, normally a spiritual idea with certain higher power perhaps, or not; while gods are generic.

 

I honestly can't figure out what you mean here. "entity in which someone believes", "greater than self", "normally a spiritual idea"... all of those terms sound fairly generic to me.

 

I have no idea what Merlyn's status is with regard to being a registered with the BSA, but that status doesn't affect his ability to understand the BSA's policies on this topic, which are made publicly available to non-members. And I don't see anything inaccurate in his understanding of the BSA's policies.

 

"This doesn't concern you, so don't talk about it" seems like a pretty juvenile technique to respond to a disagreement :-)

[moosetracker 132]

Sorry Merlyn, just my opinion here so others may say yes.. But belief in humanity as superior entity is still belief in yourself as the superior entity, as you are human and are a part of humanity.

 

Really? You think that humans are the most superior entity of the universe? Boy we are seriously scr**ed... I would at least believe there must be superior life on some galaxy that has to be doing a better job then us! Sometimes I will even believe cats, dogs and other furry critters are not as messed up as we are..

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

skeptic writes:

Merlyn; You ARE NOT a Scouter, so whatever you do or do not believe makes no difference in this context.

 

So what? I was pointing out that your definition didn't match what the BSA has said and how the BSA actually acts.

 

Your problem, and many others', is that somehow God, and god have become confused.

 

No, that's not my problem.

 

A God is a specific entity in which someone believes, something greater than self, normally a spiritual idea with certain higher power perhaps, or not

 

But not all "somethings greater than self" are gods; you wrote "ALL religious ideas are acceptable, as long as they admit something greater than ourselves", which includes things which are not gods. I disagree that the BSA allows "something greater than ourselves" that are not gods as acceptable.

 

 

moosetracker writes:

Sorry Merlyn, just my opinion here so others may say yes.. But belief in humanity as superior entity is still belief in yourself as the superior entity, as you are human and are a part of humanity.

 

First, I didn't say "THE superior entity" (and neither did you); the threshhold you wrote earlier was "Belief in something greater then yourself". As I am merely a small part of humanity, humanity as a whole is clearly "greater than myself", which would appear to meet your earlier criterion. If you are going to change that to "the superior entity" or something, I'll point out that's a radically different standard than what you previously said.

 

Really? You think that humans are the most superior entity of the universe?

 

I never came anywhere close to writing that. Can you read?

[moosetracker 132]

Sorry Merlyn, so what other entities or concepts do you find more superior then humanity? Somewhere in there maybe something that will work..

 

Humanity may be greater (as in bigger) then you, but bigger is not always better. If you choose to, you can choose to be a better person then the collective herd.. Which means there are a few exception people out there that rise above humanity.. Still I would not label them a God, though they may be instrumental in raising the score of humanity up a notch or two..

[Scoutfish 16]

"But, there is really no point in pointing this out to some, as you will continue to argue that you are right, and everyone else is wrong if they disagree. "

 

 

Sounds like every different religion and every different denomination to me.

Sounds like every religious person I know also.

 

And I would include myself too.

 

Mater of fact, sounds like the definition of faith to me.

 

I believe in God myself. Not a god, but God. But come on, That's sentance descibes you just as well.

Merlyn could say the EXACT same thing about you when he talks about your belief and faith.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

moosetracker writes:

Sorry Merlyn, so what other entities or concepts do you find more superior then humanity? Somewhere in there maybe something that will work..

 

Does this mean you're abandoning the "Belief in something greater then yourself" standard? And what metric are you using for "superior"? The earth is larger, heavier, and older than humanity, but does that qualify as "superior"? Humans can think, but the earth cannot. Are humans superior?

 

Humanity may be greater (as in bigger) then you, but bigger is not always better.

 

But you didn't SAY "better" or "superior" before, you said "greater than yourself"! If you're going to use vague descriptions, you shouldn't be surprised if someone else interprets them very differently from yourself. A set is ALWAYS greater than a proper subset of itself. I'm a proper subset of humanity, mammals, living things on earth, earth (as including the life on earth), the solar system, the milky way galaxy, and the universe. All of these are greater than myself, because I'm only a small part of each.

 

If you choose to, you can choose to be a better person then the collective herd..

 

But that's a different kind of comparison; your "collective herd" sounds like your taking some sort of average, and saying you can be better than average. A member of humanity will always be strictly less than the sum total of humanity, since there will always be other people who are "better" than you in many ways, even if you are the best human on earth in other ways.

 

Which means there are a few exception people out there that rise above humanity.. Still I would not label them a God, though they may be instrumental in raising the score of humanity up a notch or two..

 

Well, you started with a fairly workable (if largely subjective) standard with "Belief in something greater then yourself," but now it's a hopeless muddle. Does this "greater than" thing HAVE to be a god now? Or are non-gods still in the running? I sure can't tell what you mean. And how do you "rise above humanity"? Are such people no longer part of humanity?

[packsaddle 753]

"he all but admits there is no god."

Actually, this is technically correct because I have made no such admission. I have been fairly consistent in refraining from discussion of personal beliefs, mine at least. The closest I've come was in response to Brent Allen quite a while back, when I responded that I thought God was not "just a myth". I also noted that while Brent might have thought he understood something in my response, he actually would have no idea of what I meant. That is still the case.

 

"Not a lick of difference between that and theology." Assuming that "that" is 'science', this is one idea where Beavah and I disagree. I do see a difference between theology and science. The methods of inquiry are very different (here I note the prominence of experimental tests of hypotheses in science, not in theology) Perhaps Beavah was writing about religion, not theology.

 

Copernicus was indeed a religious person as well reputed to be the father of scientific method. Galileo was also deeply religious. His contributions to science were also obviously large (as well as rejected by the church). All this shows is that it is possible for a single person to simultaneously hold deep religious beliefs while still being able to conduct good scientific inquiry. It doesn't make them the same thing. It also demonstrates that science and religion need not be viewed as incompatible.

Now I admit that I am probably as ignorant of the subtle intricacies of theology as Beavah is of science. So this is one disagreement that I can live with and while continuing to respect the other view.

 

I read a while back, one respondent's faith in "the power of reason". I thought that was a great way to put it. But BSA has indicated a willingness to accept almost anything as the object of religious faith. It seems that what is required is not necessarily the 'object' of the faith in something greater than ourselves but the belief that there IS something higher. If Merlyn's personal belief is that 'humanity' qualifies, who is to be the final judge of that?

Evidently there are ample members of this forum ready to exact such judgement. Tsk, tsk. Don't you see you failed the test? You had the opportunity to allow 'humanity' to qualify as that 'higher' level, just like the 'rock' that BSA has already said is acceptable...and you rejected humanity. Did you not see the trap?

Why? Why did you not allow a person's personal belief in the higher power of humanity when you are willing to allow a person's personal belief in the higher power of a rock? When I ask, who is to judge, why are so many so ready to stand in that judgement? Wow!

[moosetracker 132]

Packsaddle as stated, I had guessed someone might disagree with my interpretation.. I see self as SELF meaning the human race that I belong too.. You see self as self meaning your own personal being.. Interesting.. My viewpoint is partially based on not ever being catholic, so I dont hold with making people saints and what not either.. So could Merlyn also believe in Isaac Newton in your view as greater then self?.. hmm.. Now I might go for belief in his theory of momentum..

 

Merlyn states I'm a proper subset of humanity, mammals, living things on earth, earth (as including the life on earth), the solar system, the milky way galaxy, and the universe. All of these are greater than myself, because I'm only a small part of each.

 

Well (to me) the earth is kindof like the belief in the lamppost, if you just are looking at rock, water, etc.. I would (personally) say no, but if the head of our Eagle board is to be taken at his word, he would say yes.. But, (for me) if in earth you state a belief in the cycle of life, the bubbling brooks, the wind in the trees, the rain then I would say yes also And here Merlyn might call me out that these can be viewed as inanimate also.. But, there is a sense of life to these things, that take on a meaning of "greater then self" (Again, my viewpoint) The universe? Again are we talking of in as inanimate clumps of rock floating in space.. Or the spinning and orbits and gravity, the life & death of a star, Halie's Comet etc..

 

So, you have it Merlyn.. It is a complex subject and, like religion the ideas of what constitutes greater then self are subject to interpretation, and argument.. So ponder it.. What do you believe is greater then self.. Have enough conviction to argue it with passion, and defend it like all ther rest of us on this forum defend our beliefs.. (For sure, what I think and what packsaddle think, neither will be agreed with by a third person) But, according to BSA, if you believe in something greater then self, and if asked, can defend it, then you are in.. But, then according to BSA, you are not an atheist anymore..

 

As I always stated, I do not quite understand the atheist, because something... SOMETHING has to be considered greater then self, even if it is a belief in things that can be explained scientifically.. Is it something that is out of your control?? Well, then that is an entity greater then you..

 

Merlyn stated.. Does this "greater than" thing HAVE to be a god now? Or are non-gods still in the running?

 

Again Merlyn, not god.. but God.. which can be a non-god as you put it.

 

As I said before Merlynn ponder it.. When you are content with what you believe in, then it will not matter if I disagree with you.

 

(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[skeptic 992]

Thanks Moose' for your expansion and clarification. Well done. Point of course is that ultimately, it comes back to our own personal convictions and thought process.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

moosetracker writes:

Merlyn stated.. Does this "greater than" thing HAVE to be a god now? Or are non-gods still in the running?

 

Again Merlyn, not god.. but God.. which can be a non-god as you put it.

 

Clear as mud, as usual.

 

As packsaddle pointed out, the BSA has explicitly said that a rock qualifies (also a tree or a stream, in a 1991 Q&A), so how could the earth itself be unacceptable? It's a superset.

[moosetracker 132]

So Merlyn.. Have your victory.. "Humanity" wins.. ...IF... You truely belief that it is superior to self, to the point of defending it, when I say.. Fiddle-Faddle.. ...IF... In your heart of hearts this is truely something greater then self, and not something you pulled out of the air for the sake of arguement..

 

If you really truely believe that earth as just a lump of earth forget all the beauty and wonder upon it is greater then self, and will defend it in your heart & soul.. And it is not something you are simply using for the arguement, then so be it.. Earth it is.. But, don't get upset if I disagree with you.. Be confident of your conviction.

 

I think you are tripping over the difference between God & god.. Because you just don't want to see it.. But I can see the problem.. As you say, BSA does not allow atheists and it is because you don't believe in a god.. But, as you say.. I'm quite sure that the vast majority of atheists have "some form of personal belief beyond self", but are rejected because they don't believe in any gods. I agree with you.. So you believe in God, not god and can be an atheists.. BSA is looking for a belief in God, not god.. So there is no arguement over not allowing in an atheist..

 

But, then by BSA standards if you believe with all you heart in the rock, you are then not a atheist.. Yet I am sure you will argue that you can believe in a rock, you can believe in the earth as a big rock, and you can believe in humanity, in a way that BSA would state that constitutes your belief in a God, and still be a atheist.. Bottom line atheists can believe in a God, they just can not believe in a god.. So why are the singled out.. Because according to BSA, if you believe, you might think by your interpretation you are an atheist, but by their interpretation you are not.. The concept of atheist is subject to interpretation just as 'self' is, just as 'greater than' is (as I interpret it to mean superior to, but you obviously do not).. and just as the fact that God is different then god is subject to interpretation..

 

So Merlyn if you truely believe in humanity as 'greater then self' can you accept the fact that BSA does not think you are an atheist???? You are now free to sign up to be a Boy Scout leader, and check the box that you believe in something greater then self.. And continue to say although BSA says I am not an atheist because I believe in humanity as 'greater then self' I disagree with BSA I think I still am an atheist while believing in humanity ! Because atheists can believe in God, but we do not believe in god...

 

And I can still argue that I think 'self' to mean the human race, though BSA disagrees, and you & packsaddle disagree.. I can also disagree with BSA that a rock is a God..

 

(Now packsaddle about this rock I would love to know where you heard this from.. Who argued and won on his theroy of a rock being his God?)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

moosetracker writes:

So Merlyn.. Have your victory.. "Humanity" wins.. ...IF... You truely belief that it is superior to self, to the point of defending it, when I say.. Fiddle-Faddle.. ...IF... In your heart of hearts this is truely something greater then self, and not something you pulled out of the air for the sake of arguement..

 

You're actually pulling requirements out of the air; the BSA doesn't use the phrase "greater than self".

 

BSA is looking for a belief in God, not god..

 

Again, clear as mud.

 

So Merlyn if you truely believe in humanity as 'greater then self' can you accept the fact that BSA does not think you are an atheist????

 

I doubt that (and that would be due to the BSA's weird definition of "atheist", if so). In any case, the BSA requirement is to subscribe to the DRP, which I do not.

 

(Now packsaddle about this rock I would love to know where you heard this from.. Who argued and won on his theroy of a rock being his God?)

 

It's from the BSA in 1991:

http://listserv.tcu.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind9711&L=scouts-l&D=0&P=34070&F=P